Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western-Muslim relations have experienced long periods of peaceful coexistence,fruitful co-operation, and close interactions that have enriched both civilizations.And yet an alien observer of our mainstream media could be forgivenfor concluding that “Islam” and the “West” can never co-exist in peace becausethey seem to have nothing in common. In fact, the intermittent violence interruptingthese long peaceful interactions – from the Crusades to the “War onTerror” – has constituted the core of most mainstream media coverage and“scholarship” purporting to “study” and “explain” these relations.In a zero-sum power game, these dominant frameworks emphasize thatsuch a “clash” is inevitable. Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations”theory has become the best known articulation and deployment of “conflict”as an “explanatory” framework for understanding current and past Muslim-West interactions. Simply put, existential, cultural, and religious chasmshave put the Muslim world on a collision course with the western world, aproblem that is most exacerbated by the presence of “Islam” and Muslimcommunities in western societies (Huntington, 1993).1 His thesis appearsto ignore each civilization’s internal diversity and pluralism and to be willfullyoblivious to the inter- and intra-civilizational interactions and centuriesoldco-existence, as Edward Said argued in his rebuttal: “Clash of Ignorance”(2001). 
 Beyond the broadest generalizations, after all, what do “Islam” and the“West” mean? How long can we afford to “ignore” the “porousness” and “ambiguity”of their geographical and cultural borders? Is “conflict” between thesetwo realms inevitable? How about the centuries-old dialogue between thesecivilizations, the “Self” and the “Other”? How can researchers and intellectualsdeploy their inter-disciplinary insights and scholarship to address both thereal and the perceived civilizational “chasms”?These questions constitute the overarching themes of some very importantscholarship published in three recent books: Engaging the Other: Public Policyand Western-Muslim Intersections, edited by Karim H. Karim and MahmoudEid; Re-Imagining the Other: Culture, Media, and Western-Muslim Intersections,edited by Mahmoud Eid and Karim H. Karim; and the Routledge Handbookof Islam in the West, edited by Roberto Tottoli. With rich methodologicalapproaches, broad theoretical lenses, and diverse topics, these three books offera unique platform to build both a holistic and nuanced understanding of thecontingencies and intricacies surrounding “Islam” and the “West.” ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".